Delhi Court February 1997 Judgments

J.K. Synthetics Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 70(1997)DLT652

M.K. Sharma, J. (1) The assessed has filed this petition under Section 256(2) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter called the 'Act') seeking to refer the following questions, stated to be questions of law, to this Court for its opinion relevant to the assessment year 1983-84 : 'WHETHER,on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned It at was correct in law in, 1. holding that the expenditure of Rs. 2,74,787.00 under the head 'Charges General', is in the nature of entertainment expenditure? 2. holding that the expenditure of Rs. 77,333.00 under the head 'Charges General', is not admissible, when the details of the same were furnished before the lower authorities? 3. holding that expenses of Rs. 5,000.00 on project report, project which was finally abandoned, is a capital expenditure? 4. holding that expenditure of Rs. 14,14,533.00 incurred for prospecting of mines for raw material to manufacture cement, is a capital expenditure? 5. holding that fees amounting to Rs. l...

Kemp and Co. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT113TriDel

1. In this Stay Application the appellants claimed waiver of pre-deposit of amounting to Rs. 39,54,672/- which has been confirmed by the Superintendent by his letter dated 18-12-1988 in pursuance of the disposal of the Appeal by the Collector of Customs (Appeals).2. We have heard both sides in the matter. The ld. Counsel submits that the Appellants had disputed classification. The department demanded duty to the extent of Rs. 39,54,672/- in terms of the allegations. It is their contention that even this amount was disputed by them in view of the fact that the final goods namely toys manufactured by them was without the aid of power and the same was exempted vide Notification No. 167/86, dated 1-3-1986 issued under sub-rule (1) of Rule 8 of Central Excise Rules 1944. The department while calculating the duty had included the value of all the raw materials supplied by an independent manufacturer of certain components when they manufactured the same with the aid of power. It is his submi...

JaIn Packaging Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT225TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. Jain Packaging (P) Ltd., the matter related to the classification of metal tops, bottoms and lids for the containers. The appellants were engaged in the manufacture of metal containers. They also manufactured metal tops, bottoms and lids for the containers and cleared them from their factory. They sought classification of such metal tops, bottoms and lids under Heading No.83.09 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (the Tariff). The Revenue classified such metal tops, bottoms and lids under sub-heading No. 8312.12 as parts of the containers of base metal. In classifying these goods under subheading No. 8312.12, the Revenue had relied upon the Note No. 1 of Chapter 83 read with Section Note 2 of Section XV of the Tariff.3. We have heard Shri M. Jayaraman, JDR, who is present for the respondents/Revenue. We have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case.4. We find that the appellants were engaged in the manufacture of metal con...

F. Pudumjee and Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)LC189Tri(Delhi)

1. These appeals are directed against the order-in-appeal dated 22-11-1988. The short question that falls for determination in these appeals relates to the manner in which excess clearances are required to be computed.2. Arguing on behalf of the Appellants the ld. Counsel submits that under Notification No. 116/84, dated 11-5-1984 issued under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 56AA of Central Excise Rules Government gave benefit for excess clearance when compared to the base year for, among others, paper and paper board. In computing the base clearance, however, the authorities below held that quantity used in waste paper which was not cleared outside the factory but which was repulped within the factory should be taken into account in computing the total clearance as such quantity which was repulped in factory was used for captive consumption. In other words Collector (Appeals) held that quantity used captively could not be excluded while computing the base clearance.3. The reference is to excisa...

B.R.T. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Central Excise

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(94)ELT227TriDel

1. In this appeal filed by M/s. BRT Ltd., Thane, ('BRT' for short), the classification of The appellants had classified Metallic Ring Travellers under sub-heading No. 4308.49 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tariff'), Metallic Rings under sub-heading No. 7308.90 of the Tariff and Nylon Travellers under sub-heading No. 3922.90 of the Tariff. The Revenue had classified all these three products under Heading No. 84.45 of the Tariff.2. Shri Gopal Prasad, Advocate, appearing for the appellants stated that in no case these products were classifiable under Heading No.84.45 in view of the separate Heading No. 84.48 for the parts and accessories suitable for use solely or principally with the machines, of Heading No. 84.45. He was of the view that even on the reasoning of the Revenue, the goods were classifiable under Heading No. 84.48 and not under Heading No. 84.45 as decided by the adjudicating and the appellate authorities. He further ...

Gujarat Electricity Board Vs. Collector of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)(93)ELT418TriDel

1. This appeal arises from the order in original dated 29-1-1988 passed by Collector of Central Excise confirming the duty amount as noted in the order-in-original. Collector (Appeals) has held that no penalty can be imposed on the appellants. The issues in this appeal pertaining to manufacture cement concrete poles has been decided against the assesee.It is the contention of the appellants that the goods were manufactured by independent contractors and therefore duty cannot be confirmed against the appellants. In this regard it is submitted that this issue has come up for consideration before the Tribunal as well as before the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court time and again and their contention has been accepted. The following cases are cited in their support.C.C.E. v. Gujarat Electricity BoardC.C.E. v. Gujarat Electricity BoardC.C.E. v. Gujarat Electricity Board 4. Order passed by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in S.C.A. No. 2501/85, dated 4-11-1991.3. We have considered the submissions a...

Thomson Press (India) Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

1. This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of CIT(A) III, New Delhi pertaining to asst. yr. 1986-87. The assessee company is a Limited Company but not a company in which public is substantially interested. It continued to carry on the same business as in the past i.e. printing and publishing of magazines, lottery tickets, periodicals, etc. "That the learned CIT(A) has legally gone wrong in treating a sum of Rs. 1,35,000 as revenue receipt." This ground was not pressed by the assessee's counsel, therefore, the ground is hereby rejected. "That the learned CIT(A) has legally erred in not allowing on a sum of Rs. 1,83,217 under section 43B of the Income-tax Act, 1961." 2.1 The learned counsel for the assessee fairly admitted that the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court which is the jurisdictional High Court in the case of assessee is against it but this issue should be decided on merit.2.2 The learned Departmental Representative relied on the decision of Delhi High Court in t...

Freezeking Industries (P.) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of

Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi

Reported in: (1997)62ITD1(Delhi)

1. This appeal by the assessee-company for assessment year 1986-87 is directed against order of CIT(A) confirming ex parte assessment under section 144(b) of I.T. Act.2. The assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 2,76,640 on 30th November 1986. Having regard to the complexity of accounts maintained maintained by the company, the nature of business and interest of revenue, the Assessing Officer directed the accounts of the assessee be got audited under section 142(2A) of I.T. Act. The above order was approved by CIT-III, New Delhi on 10-3-1989. He nominated M/s. Khanna Annadhanam, C.As to carry special audit under section 142(2A) of the company for the assessment year 1986-87. The fees of the auditor was fixed at Rs. 15,000 apart from travelling expenses of Rs. 5,000. The Assessing Officer vide its office note dated 10-3-1989 required the assessee to furnish audit report under section 142(2A) from the nominated C.As within 150 days of date of receipt of notice, i.e., from 10-3-1...

National Textile Corporation Vs. Smt. Kamla Sharma

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 66(1997)DLT375

Jaspal Singh, J.1. The respondent under whom the petitioner-company is admittedly a tenant, instituted a suit for possession and for recovery of mesne profits/damages, etc. In response to the same the petitioner-company moved an application under section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985 (hereinafter called 'the Act'), alleging that since an enquiry had already been held under section 16 and a scheme was already under preparation or consideration within the meaning of section 17 of the said Act, thereforee, the suit was not maintainable. The learned Additional District Judge, however, did not agree. He dismissed the application. Hence, this civil revision. 2. A perusal of the application under section 22 of the Act would go to show that the company had challenged the maintainability of the suit only so far as it related to the relief of mesne profits/damages, etc. It did not say that the suit for possession too could not lie. I am mentioning this becaus...

G.D. Riazul Haq Vs. Union of India and ors.

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 66(1997)DLT266

Dalveer Bhandari, J.(1) The petitioners in the aforesaid petitions were in Military Service in the Indian Army, and retired from the service prior to 1.1.1986. The petitioners after retirement were re-employed in the Central Industrial Security Force on fresh terms and conditions, regarding their pay. These petitioners remained posted on different units and different stations as the members of the C.I.S.F. They were also re-employed prior to 1.1.1986. At the time of re-employment, there were no conditions attached that the respondents will deduct the Military pension from the pay of the petitioners and, in fact, they were receiving the Military pension w.e.f. 1.1.1996. (2) According to the recommendations of the Fourth Pay Commission, their salary, pension and allowances were increased. The petitioners are aggrieved by the action of the respondents by which they are deducting the enhanced military, pension and deductions are done from retrospective effect from the pay of the petitioner...